Aorccdrnig to a rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht frist and lsat ltteer are in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe. http://www.abc.net.au/tropic/stories/s953790.htm
lod swen lubslith Not true. Keep in mind you can't put letters into certain sequences otherwise they will be readable as other words (even gibberish ones). So, you can change sequences a bit, but not much.
You misse the point of the study. It says the first/last letters have to remain the same. So "lod" of course does not get read as "old." 3 letter words simply can't be affected by this--how many 3 letter words are commonly mispelled anyway? Actually, I often see people mispel "led," as in "Di Canio led Charlton to victory." They often make it "lead." And of course "two, to, and too" give people fits, but again, these examples are really relevant to the study.
True, I missed that. It's still old news though Anyways, it still only works when the sequence you rearrange isn't going to look like a readable word. Right = rghit works fine for example. rabbit = ribabt, not so good. snatch = stanch doesn't work even though stanch is not a word (AFAIK). This is because stanch is a possible word in English, even if it isn't one currently.
Doesn't it say the first and last two letters have to be the same? Which doesn't leave much room for error with too many words. Or it is just a way of saying that we can quite happily ignore relatively minor errors, filling in the blanks as we go. It actually is a word, generally seeming to be a variant of the word staunch.